There was another 'fact' in the article Pericles - "This year Canada’s canola sales to Europe were zero: Zero seed. Zero oil. Zero meal."

That would be interesting if they used to sell masses of canola to Europe. But a quick check of some Canadian stats and we find that in 1997 they sold so little seed to Europe that it gets put in the 'Other' column and 1.4% of meal exports went to Europe. Europe wasn't buying Canadian canola long before GE varieties were introduced.

Not selling to Europe isn't going to cause Canadian canola growers to loose any sleep. In the period 1995 to 2004 world-wide Canadian exports of meal have increased by 29.4%, canola oil by 89% and seed by 34%. So growing GE canola has not affected their export markets in any discernable way.

So it is a little disingenuous to claim that Canada not selling to Europe has any real meaning for us. Tager might as well point out that they haven't sold anything to Outer Mongolia.

The claim is completely accurate, completely irrelevant and completely misleading. I suspect we could apply the same description to most of the other calims in the article.

Pericles
So you won't seek to get more information from Jeremy because you don't want to be exposed to facts which don't confirm to your already determined opinion. We will really get a long way on exploring this issue with that sort of attitude.

If there was any truth in the claimed benefits of GM, we would have a well referenced balance sheet showing farmers will benefit but it is obvious that both GM and non-GM farmers will be far worse off. Many details are hidden behind commercial in confidence but it is very obvious that the GM company and patent owner will be the main beneficiary in permanently contaminating the worlds food supply with a patented product not wanted by the majority of consumers and farmers.
Consumers will not have a choice because it will be too difficult and too expensive for farmers to market as GM-free as contamination can not be controlled.
When we talk of markets and market loss, little is ever said about the fact that all farmers are expected to market as GM.
EU is on average around 13% of our export market and we will lose that market if we adopt GM. Japan is Australia's biggest customer and many Japanese customers have made it clear to the Australian Barley Board that the only reason they buy from Australia is because we are GM-free. Who is going to compensate farmers for loss of markets?
Lets be sensible, who do you think should be liable for the economic, health or environmental loss caused by a GM product?
The non-GM grower (as proposed), the GM grower (recommended legal recourse is for non-GM farmers to sue GM farmers although the outcome is doubtful), the state government (who have the legislated authority to assess economics), the Federal government (with inadequate legislative protection) or the GM company (who own the product and know the risk)?
In order for consumers to have the choice, farmers must be able to be able to grow a GM-free product and it is essential that we adopt a strict liability regime to legislation to ensure the GM company is liable for any costs for testing, recalls etc caused by their product.
Non-GM farmers do not want to compensate the GM industry by paying for losses caused by a product we do not want and do not need

Rossco, as I pointed out before, I have an entirely open mind on this issue. I am not part of the food industry, I have no vested interest in any particular outcome, I am simply interested in the arguments that are presented. I stand by my statement that as an introduction to the issues, this article did a very poor job. So poor, in fact, that it gave me the impression that the arguments it claimed to have might not exist, or might not be as strong as the language in the article suggests.

Just calling it as I see it. Sorry if I have trodden on someone's bunions in the process.

In fact, having looked again, I am even more adamant that what we have here is a lazy set of half-baked observations masquerading as a contribution to - presumably - an important debate.

But it also occurred to me that Mr T. is somehow conformimg to the accepted house style, which is to write as though you are talking to people who already know what you are going to say, and are totally in support of you. This allows you to forget about anyone who might not be as fanatical as yourself, and might just be looking for some illumination on the topic.

John Stone and David Flint provide an identical service for those who believe Australia is being overrun by Moslem terrorists, as does Peter Sellick for christian evangelists. Is it too much to expect that contributors step back a pace or two from their hobbyhorse and offer a slightly more balanced offering? Or at least to pretend for a moment that not everyone automatically agrees with them. Instead we get sloppy argumentation, fuzzy logic and careless construction, excused on the basis that everyone who is reading is a believer anyway.

A spin-off of this approach is that it also totally polarizes the forum comments. These are either "yay, you're the man" or "you're an idiot" type responses that add nothing to the debate. (Unless of course you are Boaz, who can turn a discussion on absolutely any topic at all into a fireside chat about his religious beliefs.)

There are always two sides to an argument. Even Saddam Hussein had a legitimate grievance with Kuwait when he invaded in 1990, although we seem to prefer not to think too hard about that.

Polemic is fine, but it has to be supported with facts. Buttressing opinions with even more opinions doesn't cut it for me, even though it seems to be a popular pastime.

Unfortunately Pericles has fallen in to the emotive trap of many in the GM debate. I recommend a very interesting book that accurately details some of the concerns regarding GM foods. It is "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey Smith.
It starts detailing how a top scientist called Arpad Pusztai was employed to establish that GM foods were safe. A lucrative government grant allowed his 3 year proposed study to progress but 6 months into that study Mr Pusztai went public with very serious concerns explaining how developing animals fed on GM foods had smaller organ development, larger livers (indicating inability to cope with toxins), blood disorders and changes within the bowel that could be predisposition to tumours. He was praised until he was sacked after a few hundred thousand pounds was paid to Rowett University by Monsanto.
The book does not include Monsanto's adverse health findings recently revealed that showed blood disorders in animals fed GM.
Even our regulatory process allowed Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola to be approved as "safe" after analysis of Monsanto's data despite that data revealing an increase in liver weights of around 16% in only a few weeks.
Some consumers don't see why they should eat GM and some farmers don't see why we can't continue to sell consumer preferred non-GM products. Legally non-GM means zero contamination and this is impossible due to nature and human error.